I find it interesting that they are just now doing this, over 11 years since AA 587, especially considering there are going to be relatively few aircraft affected (and even fewer by the deadline) due to the retirement of these aircraft.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):I find it interesting that they are just now doing this, over 11 years since AA 587, especially considering there are going to be relatively few aircraft affected (and even fewer by the deadline) due to the retirement of these aircraft.

Yeah, the horse left the stable, ran for miles, had a long and happy life with a band of wild horses, had a couple of foals and passed of old age.

Barn door? Rusted and fell off the hinges.

We'll nail that door back up again though.....

Since the incident hasn't happened since, is this even worth pursuing?

Quote:
Now, the FAA has worked with the counterparts at the European Aviation Safety Agency and Airbus to install a flashing light and sound in the cockpit to warn against excessive rudder movement on A300 and A310 planes.

The FAA estimates the update will cost $72,720 to $107,720 per plane.

So it wasn't a US-only thing, and for easy math if you presume $100k and 215 planes, $21M will be spend doing this upgrade.

Well it does kinda seem strange doing this 11 years later, and usually I'd criticize the government for being so inefficient, but the FAA has done a great job protecting the skies over the past couple decades. If this is the worst decision they make (and it may actually save a plane for all we know) I'm pretty happy

Now, the FAA has worked with the counterparts at the European Aviation Safety Agency and Airbus to install a flashing light and sound in the cockpit to warn against excessive rudder movement on A300 and A310 planes.

The FAA estimates the update will cost $72,720 to $107,720 per plane.

So it wasn't a US-only thing

If AESA didn't issue an AD, then it is a US-only thing. But of course the FAA worked with manufacturer and certifying authority about it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 6):...and for easy math if you presume $100k and 215 planes, $21M will be spend doing this upgrade.

I find it hard to believe that the FAA AD can cost that much to implement. After all it seems to be no more than a lateral G force sensor in the tail which rings a bell and flashes a light in the cockpit when the plane is piloted beyond any sanity, but still well before structural limits are reached.

Seems kinda crazy that it took 11yrs for this if it really is that important.

I believe that it took them a while to discover that the current rudder travel limiter can allow excessive rudder movement at times. Its cheaper to put in a warning than to redo the mechanical limiter which works in almost all cases.

I find it hard to believe that the FAA AD can cost that much to implement. After all it seems to be no more than a lateral G force sensor in the tail which rings a bell and flashes a light in the cockpit when the plane is piloted beyond any sanity, but still well before structural limits are reached.

$100K is a deal for that work package. The sensor/bundle/bell/light parts kit should run at least $50,000, then include mechanic time to install it and run the functional check...

Sadly, yes. The cost of parts in this business is staggering. I've seen individual bolts with price tags close to $600. As for the cost of this AD; any time you add controls or indication in the flight deck, it's a very expensive mod.

Quoting MountainFlyer (Thread starter):I find it interesting that they are just now doing this, over 11 years since AA 587, especially considering there are going to be relatively few aircraft affected (and even fewer by the deadline) due to the retirement of these aircraft.

The FAA is tasked with the functionality and viability of the industry, the NTSB is more concerned about safety, not economics.
If this had been done 11 years ago consider the consequences, families of the AA crash victims would have additional items for their lawsuits, AA would be making additional noises to Airbus, Airbus would be making additional noises to AA and the FAA, European agencies and governments would be on the case, etc. etc. etc, other operators of the a/c type would have been interested in the proceedings, it would have gotten real complicated real quick. Search the archives for threads at the time that even had a hint of pilot error or equipment design / failure, and that is just on A.Net.

Now 11 years later, the only victims are the US companies who still fly the a/c in any quantity, who else really cares and is affected? It may even be an economic stimulus package if the parts company tasked with providing the parts needed is struggling and needs an economic boost.
Whether the US companies will retire their a/c earlier in favour of an Airbus replacement may be of greater interest, but if they go Boeing it matters little as their is already the WTO fiasco's to be used by either party to claim unfair trade, so at the end of the day, other than cargo companies footing the bill, is this really an issue?

Quoting FI642 (Reply 11):This could really accelerate the retirement of the A310's from the FX fleet.

They do have four years to comply. I don't know what their A300/A310 retirement schedule is, but the issue isn't very time critical.

From the linked article:

Quote:Two of the plane's bigger customers, delivery companies FedEx and UPS, each plan to comply with the rule by installing warning lights, but they disagreed about the need for the rule.

"FedEx continues to believe that proper rudder control in response to wake turbulence is most effectively addressed through pilot education and training," says Maury Donahue, a spokeswoman for the company with 106 of the targeted planes.

UPS, which has 53 of the planes, initially expressed concern about the cost of installing pedal equipment. But the company says installing a flashing light and its software could be done within the four years that the FAA allows.

Quoting UALWN (Reply 14):Really? Naively, I would have expected the accelerometer to cost around $100, and the bell and light about $10 each...

You're talking about manufacturing cost only. That's only a tiny fraction of the cost of aviation parts. You need to include amortized engineering & certification, plus the fact that parts have an *extremely* high markup. This problem gets much worse when it's a small fleet because you're amortizing an essentially fixed engineering/certification/setup bill over a small number of parts. Typically, you want to add a "0" to the manufacturing cost to get something approximately equal to the spare part price.

Expensive LRU's typically run into the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, simple LRU's are typically in the tens of thousands. Something like a custom wire bundle running from tail to flight deck is going to be thousands all by itself.

Quoting GLA MD11 (Reply 17):I find it interesting you make that statement, considering a picture of an A300 in DHL colors stands on the site's frontpage today... Wikipedia states that DHL, through subsidiaries, operates 28 A300.

That photo is a DHL contractor, not DHL themselves. Perhaps they are a subsidiary, I don't know. My reference was coming from Planespotters.net, which does not list any of the DHL named companies as currently operating any A300/310s, and not in the United States, where this ruling is the most important for the moment. As far as US owned and operated A300/310s, I could be wrong, but AFAIK FX and 5X are the only ones.

Why don't they just redesign the rudder assembly...ever see inside one?...nothing in there!...nothing like a Boeing structure.
While not a very popular aircraft these days, many still fly and as long as they are certificated an airworthy ship...then ensure it is by redesigning the rudder structure to maintain integrity through all flight regimes. A pilot should not have to be concerned over the possibility that his input may destroy a control surface...that is nonsense...

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 21):You need to include amortized engineering & certification, plus the fact that parts have an *extremely* high markup. This problem gets much worse when it's a small fleet because you're amortizing an essentially fixed engineering/certification/setup bill over a small number of parts.

I'm used to mark-ups of factors of 3 to 5 in the satellite business. Not to mark ups of factors of 10 or more.